Left Pushes Misinformation in War Against Dakota Access Pipeline

When it comes to the plight of the American Indian, liberal hypocrisy shines

Liberal hysteria surrounding the Dakota Access Pipeline appears to have reached fever pitch. Over 120 musicians signed an open letter to President Obama, authored by British singer Kate Nash, demanding he acquiesce to protesters’ demands and halt construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

“We encourage you to remember that this planet provides for us, not the other way around. Water is life and this cannot be underestimated or taken for granted in 2016,” the letter reads.

No one can deny that Native Americans have a lot of things to be angry about – the Dakota Access Pipeline isn’t one of them.

“We are aware of the long and painful history between the U.S. and its indigenous people. Know that the world’s eyes and the eyes of the music community are on you now,” it continues.

The letter was signed by such noteworthy figures as Alicia Keys, Green Day frontman Billie Joe Armstrong, and Pussy Riot, the far-left feminist agitators masquerading as a punk band.

On Sunday, the anti-pipeline agitators gained something of a victory after the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers refused to grant the project a permit needed to finish construction — the company will likely be forced to reroute the pipeline.

Do you support individual military members being able to opt out of getting the COVID vaccine?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

[lz_ndn video= 31702116]

The biggest concern of Nash and company appears to be the treatment of the protesters. “We are writing to express our shock at the treatment of the people of Standing Rock Sioux in North Dakota,” the letter states. “We are deeply disturbed by the police actions that have been taking place, where non violent protests have been and continue to be met with extremely aggressive tactics.”

Their concern is hardly surprising, given the plethora of false stories and fake news regarding the protests. Indeed, one widely circulated story even asserted that police had been given the green light to shoot protesters.

Of course what these hysterical reports — which range from highly exaggerated to patently false — fail to mention is that some of these “peaceful” pipeline protests are anything but. Protesters have attacked police, set fires, and damaged private property.

Moreover, even those who are protesting peacefully do so for a shaky cause. The pipeline will not be constructed on native land, but on private property north of the Standing Rock reservation.

Nor will the pipeline harm the water supply, as it will be built underneath the Missouri River. If the protesters are truly that worried about the safety of the local water supply, they might try lobbying for extra layers of pipe, so if there is a breach the pipeline can be shut off before the water can be contaminated. Indeed, there are already six other pipelines in the area, none of which were protested for their supposed danger to public safety.

Furthermore, the local community had ample opportunity to stop the pipeline’s construction if they so desired. “Before pipeline construction even began, project leaders partook in 559 meetings with community leaders, elected officials, and organizations in areas neighboring the Dakota Access Pipeline,” reported Benjamin Kain for LifeZette.

“The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers held 389 meetings with 55 tribes to confer on the DAPL. In addition, 29 open houses, public meetings, and regulatory hearings were held throughout the four states where the pipeline travels. The Three Affiliated Tribes of North Dakota even voted unanimously to approve the project on Dec. 2, 2015,” Kain wrote.

Given all of the evidence, it seems clear that resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline was drummed up by interests who stand to gain financially should the pipeline not be built.

But beyond liberals’ support for the obviously unjustified protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline, there is a certain hypocrisy in the American Left’s general reverence for the Native American cause. Indeed, when liberals speak of the plight of the American Indian they often end up sounding, well, conservative.

Of course, many things liberals describe as crimes perpetrated against Native Americans they seem to be completely fine with if done to Western peoples. They bemoan the destruction of tribes’ native culture and way of life — yet cheer on the destruction of traditional Christian European culture.

The cite the horrific American Indian boarding schools, where native children were taught to despise their native culture, yet ignore the parallels to American schools and colleges today, where white kids are indoctrinated into believing their ancestors and own civilization have been a scourge on humanity.

Liberals speak approvingly of Native Americans’ spiritual way of life, while doing everything to attack and subvert Christianity in their own culture, and they praise American Indians’ connection to the land and traditional society — whilst promoting urban values at home and marginalizing and ridiculing rural Americans who believe in traditional gender roles, hunt their own food, and eschew big city beliefs.

[lz_related_box id=”253908″]

If liberal support for Native Americans is often fundamentally hypocritical, so too can some conservative dismissals of Native Americans be equally as hypocritical. There is a clear conservative case for the American Indian.

Conservatives, as the name suggests, should desire to conserve — and true conservatives should view the destruction of the American Indian’s traditional way of life with the same horror with which they view the destruction of their own. Indeed, both traditional Western civilization and the American Indian’s way of life were destroyed in the name of “progress” and “modernity.”

It’s hardly surprising then that Russell Kirk, the traditionalist conservative intellectual and godfather of the American conservative movement, was a fierce proponent of the American Indian cause, and after the 1973 Wounded Knee incident reportedly said he would have stood proudly in arms with the members of the American Indian Movement.

No one can deny that Native Americans have a lot of things to be angry about — but the Dakota Access Pipeline isn’t one of them.

Join the Discussion

Comments are currently closed.